This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The subdivision at issue was subject to a restrictive covenant which allowed for amendment of the restrictions with the consent of at least three-fourths of the property owners. Iserman (D) purchased a lot in the subdivision for use as a state-licensed group residential facility. After D purchased the lot, the other lot owners (P) amended the subdivision's restrictive covenant to prohibit use of any of the lots as a group residential facility. P then sued to enforce the amended covenant against D. D moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted D's motion on the basis that the amended restrictive covenant discriminates against mentally impaired persons, and was therefore in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P appeals. D also appeals with respect to the trial court's findings regarding the retroactive application of the amended restrictions.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.